Food safety culture – why all the fuss?

Words by Elizabeth Frankish, Dr Tom Ross, Dr John Bowman, Dr Pieternel Luning, Deon Mahoney, Dr Bisi Oladele, Graham McAlpine and Dr Hayriye Bozkurt

The global burden of foodborne disease where one in 10 people suffer a foodborne illness annually1 warrants improved efficacy of food safety management systems (FSMSs) through supply chains. The main contributors to foodborne illness identified by the World Health Organisation - poor hygiene and sanitation by food handlers, contaminated equipment, temperature abuse, and food from an unsafe source - are factors influenced directly or indirectly by food handler behaviour. Why is it that companies with seemingly advanced FSMSs still sometimes cause outbreaks? Evidence is building that improving food safety (FS)-culture contributes not only to better food safety outcomes but also reduces the cost of food safety control.

FS-culture is that part of organisational culture that relates to food safety beliefs, attitudes, perceptions, and behaviours.2 However, FS-culture is a complex combination of technological, managerial, and organisational conditions, human factors, and the food safety management system (FSMS).3

The Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) defines FS-culture as “shared values, beliefs and norms that affect mindset and behaviour toward food safety in, across and throughout an organisation”, while Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) defines FS-culture as “Food safety culture in a business is how everyone (owners, managers, employees) thinks and acts in their daily job to make sure that the food they make or serve is safe. It’s about having pride in producing safe food every time, recognising that a good quality product must be safe to eat. Food safety is your top priority”.

Preventative controls and hazard analysis and critical control point plans (HACCP) are effective process operations control systems, but they ignore the human input factor to food safety management. The effectiveness of FSMSs is dependent on how food workers apply company policies and implement procedures in practice.5 Thus FS-culture is an enabling

Food safety culture measurement approaches Basis of measurement Advantages Disadvantages

Toolkits e.g. FSANZ, 2019 Questionnaires Matrices assigning riskbased culture category Benchmarking Ideas for improvement Snapshot in time Insufficient elements provided for advanced FSMSs No integration with individual company FSMS

Maturity models e.g. Jespersen et al., 20164 Questionnaires Matrices assigning a scale of food safety culture maturity Benchmarking Provides a concept of the end goal Snapshot in time Participant perceptions influence results

Mixed methods quantitative models e.g. Zanin et al., 20216 Questionnaires Interviews Observations Document analysis Microbial analysis Assessment over time. Triangulation of data provides a more comprehensive interpretation of results Ability to target specific areas for improvement Time-consuming Needs to be led by an experienced quality assurance person or consultant

Table 1. Food safety culture measurement approaches, their advantages, and disadvantages.

condition for the successful operation of an FSMS. The integration of a food science and behavioural science systems-based approach to managing food safety risk is described as the ‘techno-managerial and food safety climate route’3 or the ‘socio-technical system’.

The prevailing FS-culture is influenced by the interaction of workforce composition, size of the organisation, maturity level of the food safety (and quality) management system and position in the supply chain. International developments in FS-culture also affect Australian operations. The FSMS, financial and technical resources, change management, market forces, and customer requirements combine to drive imperatives to develop FSculture. The extent to which these mechanisms are used determines food handler response to learning and compliance, and in turn determines FSculture outcomes.

In positive and proactive FS-cultures the basic requirements of an FSMS are extended and food safety values are considered foundational to its effective implementation and practice;2 leaders demonstrate daily that food safety is the top priority by ‘walking the talk’; there is consistent, appropriate food safety behaviour through acceptance of individual responsibility for reducing risk; risk-based goals are clearly articulated and communicated with high performance expectations; people have authority to make decisions; resources and training are provided through risk-based decision making; and food handlers are educated in their training because training does not ensure compliance. Food handlers who understand why specific controls are in place will trust that the expectations placed on them will positively impact food safety. They will have strong commitment to the company food safety vision. A proactive FS-culture enables rapid adaptability to turn new threats into opportunities and raises risk awareness through understanding risk likelihood and severity and the potential for new or increased risk.

Like performance evaluation of FSMSs through validation, verification and monitoring, performance measurement of FS-culture is a means of defining its effectiveness4 and provides a baseline from which to drive culture improvement. The advantages of measurement include raising risk awareness, supporting risk assessment, promoting commitment to food safety, identifying weaknesses, informing decision-making, and helping to avoid foodborne illness incidents and food recalls.

Measurement options include toolkits, maturity models and mixedmethod quantitative models. The basis of their measurement, their advantages and disadvantages are shown in Table 1.

Toolkits developed by regulatory bodies incorporate questionnaires and matrices to assign a risk-based culture category. These tools are a useful starting point for businesses. Maturity models are tools to evaluate a snapshot of culture against a scale4 that categorises maturity progression by behaviour-based elements. These tools enable decision-making about resource needs and priorities and allow the development of plans to improve maturity.

Mixed-method quantitative approaches acknowledge the interconnectedness of FS-culture determinants, thus are the most effective in determining the outcomes of FS-culture inputs. Incorporation of observations, questionnaires, interviews, document analysis, microbial analysis, and in some approaches historical data, while timeconsuming, allows for triangulation of data, thus increasing validity of the results, reducing bias,6 allowing for trend analysis, and the use of feedback to target specific improvements.

The most beneficial measurement tools systematically assess dimensions that are peoplebased i.e. leadership, commitment,

communication, knowledge, risk awareness and perception, and beliefs; and technological/organisational dimensions including the work environment, the management system, styles, and process. It is unlikely that one measurement approach will be appropriate for all situations because they have been developed from the perspectives of regulators, food processors,3 quality assurance managers6 or food handlers.4 Assessments reported in the literature provide an understanding of the prevailing FS-culture, actual food safety and hygiene behaviour, how the management system supports food safety, microbiological hygiene status, and guidance on appropriate interventions to improve performance.

Improving FS-culture is time, and resource-intensive. Barriers to change include resources, such as financial, physical, scientific, educational, and regulatory, and people factors, including, for example, values, belief systems and willingness to self-improve. Striving to improve FS-culture should not create a judgmental environment but rather an environment supportive of compliance with best practices. This requires attention to factors such as welldefined competency requirements and training targeted to education levels. Incentives and rewards might be needed for example, to motivate appropriate behaviour and encourage teamwork.

The recent inclusion of FS-culture requirements internationally by Codex, the European Union, and the US Food and Drug Administration provides an imperative for Australian food businesses to act. For example, major retailer Woolworths recently issued a food safety culture code of practice for suppliers. Private standards e.g. BRCGS are also introducing FS-culture components. Interest from investors and insurance companies in culture development to reduce risk will also propel FS-culture into mainstream management. Culture is not something to be implemented, but rather a FSculture exists, therefore the increased consumer interest in food provenance, business transparency and social responsibility provide compelling reasons for demonstrating continuous improvement in FS-culture through its measurement. The opportunity ahead is to develop the appropriate tools to enhance FS-culture in the context of specific food operations.

Food safety risk is managed most effectively by integrating FS-culture improvement with food safety management. A positive FS-culture leads to fundamentally successful operations, business agility when challenges like the COVID-19 pandemic arise, and sustainability. To manage an effective food safety management system while nurturing FS-culture is complex and hard, but it is a goal which Australian food businesses will find worthwhile in their endeavour to consistently produce safe food.

1. World Health Organisation, WHO. (2015). WHO

Estimates of the Global Burden of Foodborne

Diseases. Retrieved from Geneva, Switzerland: https://www.who.int/activities/estimating-theburden-of-foodborne-diseases. Accessed 7th

August 2020. 2. Powell, D. A., Jacob, C. J., & Chapman, B. J. (2011). Review: Enhancing food safety culture to reduce rates of foodborne illness. Food Control, 22, 817-822. 3. De Boeck, E., Jacxsens, L., Bollaerts, M., &

Vlerick, P. (2015). Food safety climate in food processing organisations: Development and validation of a self-assessment tool. Trends in

Food Science and Technology, 46, 242-251. 4. Jespersen, L., Griffiths, M., Maclaurin, T.,

Chapman, B., & Wallace, C. (2016). Measurement of food safety culture using survey and maturity profiling tools. Food Control, 66, 174-182. 5. Luning, P. A., Bango, L., Kussaga, J., Rovira, J., &

Marcelis, W. J. (2008). Comprehensive analysis and differentiated assessment of food safety control systems: a diagnostic instrument. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 19, 522-534. 6. Zanin, L. M., Luning, P. A., da Cunha, D. T., &

Stedefeldt, E. (2021). Influence of educational actions on tranistioning food safety culture in a foodservice context: Part 1 - Triangulation and data interpretation of food safety culture elements. Food Control, 119(107447).

Elizabeth Frankish is a consultant microbiologist and is currently undertaking a PhD at University of Tasmania and University of Sydney on microbial risk management in fruit packinghouses. Tom Ross is Professor in Food Microbiology at Centre for Food Safety and Innovation, Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture, University of Tasmania. John Bowman is Professor and Leader at Centre for Food Safety and Innovation, Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture, University of Tasmania. Pieternel Luning is Associate Professor, Food Quality and Design Group, Department of Agrotechnology and Food Sciences, Wageningen University. Deon Mahoney is head of food safety at PMA Australia-New Zealand. Bisi Oladele is technical manager at Jeftomson, a vertically integrated apple and pear business. Graham McAlpine is director of Fresh Food Systems & Associates. Hayriye Bozkurt is a postdoctoral research associate at ARC Industrial Transformational Training Centre for Fresh Food Safety in the Fresh Produce Industry, Sydney Institute of Agriculture, University of Sydney. f